Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-06-02

tant in this case to have a trial before q
full bench, 90 II involved many new and
novel questions Of law never before pre-
scented IN this court. He aaid II would be
great satisfaction 10 have the trial be-
fore full bench, as II WAS desired that
when the case Is tried II be finally tried.
Without full bench the chances are that
the first trial would not dispose Of the
case. He Baid his information from
Dover WINS that the condition Of Mrs,
Ridgely, sister of the chief justice, was
very serious, and her illness was likely to
terminate fatally today. He asked That
the case go over until the September
term.
Levi @. Bird, Esq, OF plaintiffs coun-
sol, said it would prove great disap-
pointment to him not TO have the case
tried Mt this term, but be fully agreed
with Mr.. Spruanoe in regard TO the many
newquestions Of law involved in the case,
and the importance OF having trial be-
fore full bench.
The case was then continued until the
September term.
The case Of Mccartney, Kenny a. Co.,
VS.. L. p. Buck and others, mochanics'
lien case growing out Of the erection of
the Academy of Music, was also continued
until the September term.
In the case OF Daniel O'C. Kenny vs.. the
News Publishing Company, action for
libel, growing out of charges made in the
Morning Nesos against Mr.. Kenny while
the latter was member Of the Board of
Education, L. O. Vandegrift, Esq, ooun-
sci for the plaintiff, announced that the
case had been settled by counsel. The
settlement was by Judgment for the
plaintiff, Mr.. Kenny, but for what
amount both sides refused to make
public.
At IL O'Clock court adjourned until 10
O'Clock Tuesdaymorning.
In superior court Tuesday morning the
case of Winthrop Cunningham q Sons,
dealers In goat skins, vs.. James Eglinton,
Sr., leather dealer, both Of Philadelphia,
for which jury OF inquisition was drawn
yesterday afternoon, action on foreign
attachment was begun. The debt 10 o
note of 81, $40, with interest from October
22d, 1886. L. O. vandegrift, Esq, plain
tiff's attorney, made a statement TO this
effect, and J. II. Hoffecker, Jr., ESQ, de-
fendant's counsel, objected to the note
going into evidence. He said the obiec-
l hsch Wte9 tIht tbo butt WINS DEOukut D6luEb
the note was due. The note was given
on July 21st, 1886, at 90 days, making in
due October 1924. 1886, and suit was
entered on November 18th. When the
note was given o written contract was
entered into between the parties, in which
the plaintiffs agreed to extend the time of
the note to Ave months. He also claimed
that the defendant had set-off for goods
and merchandise sold to the plaintiffs
and not paid for, amounting in value to
more than the amount of the note.
The court ruled that the agreement
could not affect the note and that the
note was admissible as evidence.
William I. Cunningham of the plain
tit firm, testified that in addition to the
note, the defendant owed them $3.50,
money advanced to him. They took
from him quantity of leather, to be sold
by them without commission, TO o leather
house in Boston, but they sold only q
small portion, the balance being pro.
nounced unstable.
For the defence James Eglinton. Jr ,son
Of the defendant, said he managed hif
fathers busiphss in Philadelphi, anil that
the Ounninghams agreed short tina he
fore the 81 ,372 note became due to Ike y
lot of goods, and bought TO the amount
of 81, 84904, ON which they paid only
$3.50, leaving abalance due of ~, 100 Oh
which has not been paid.
| solomon Eglinton, book-keeper fol
James Eglinton, ST., oorroborated thii
testimony by the book of original entries
kept by him. The book was offered il
evidence.
/ NJ n,,nninnl,a,n xuou raaollad opd aair
that 5000 of the payment made to Eglin
ton was for q case of goods which was Il
have been delivered, but was not.
| After brief arguments by counsel, cour
at 1.15 o'clock adjourned until 8 O'Clock
In superior court in the afternoon
L. O. Yandegrift, Esq, made the closing
argument TO the jury in the case Of Win
throp Cunningham u Sons vs. Jame
Eglinton, ST., and after brief charge b.
Judge Houston the jury retired.
Tilghman Johnston, Esq of counse
for defendants in the case of the River
side Lumber Company Va. ]. Frank Rutl
ct al, in which o verdict was rendered
for the plaintiff, filed reasons for his mo
ton for nm arrest of Judgment. Mr.. Lor
opposed the motion, and it was denied
Nr. Jobnston noted an exception, and tn
matter will 60 to the court of errors an'
appeals.
At3.55 o'clock the jury in the Cum
bingham Eglinton case returned with
verdict for the plaintiffs for 81 ,422 20
the full amount claimed. The jury wa
discharged from further attendance a
this term.
The parties TO this suit all reside ant
do business in Philadelphia, but jane
ERlinton, Sr., the defendant, was for
merly in business in this city and own
property here.
After some minor business court I'D
journed until 10 o'clock yesterday morn
ing.
morning application was made by Charlie
B. Lore, Esq, for rule to show cause VIII
tho sheriff's sale Of George W. Morrison
property should not be set aside. Tn
property comprised the Jefferson wharf
New Castle, which was bought BY the WI
liam Lea Il Sons Company for 70, 100. sub
iect to a mortgage and interest OF $S, 18t
and q farm OF 108 acres In New CAST
hundred, which was bought by Count
Treasurer Edmund Hannah for "a 800, sui
iect to mortgage OF $4,000. The res
sons assigned were: Gross inadequacy
price; that a few days prior to the sale on
Of the directors OF the Farmers Bank-a
execution ereditor-said the wharf propert
! would not be offered thereby keepin
! interested parties away from the sale; TIT
the office and scales were not mentioned
; the advertisement; that copy OF the nc
, yertfsement was not delivered TO other 81
: ecntlon creditors; that persons were NJ
given an opportunity to bid; and that II
, sales OF the wharf and farm were so mike
. the farm being offered, sold, Withdraw
| aslA afraIn a ftar tina W hnrf flaT6f
, causing great confusion. John ii. Rodne.
i ESQ.,, the sherifS's counsel, opposed u
! George W. Morrison was called, and to
+, tilted that the wharf is 1903 by 400 feet, Wit
! IL feet depth at low water; It cost him,
= all, $4,000 or $4,000. and brought In
i revenue OF 1890, per year. me farm ". W
ments, for $l2, 900 cash, and brought In
:, revenue OF $500 per year. Mr.. Cooper,
director Of the Farmers Bank, told him q
j., wharf property would not be sold, and,
= consequence of this, some parties wi
!, would have attended the sale stayed ava
William Herbert said he was not a ni
4 der at the sale OF the wharf properly o
4 was prepared to bid more for It than 1t W
= knocked OF for. The reason he did not b
a was that friend OF Mr.. Morrison asked hi
y not TO bid, M the property was to be bong
!, Ia for MIR. Morrison. Mr.. Herbert DECLINE
u 10 saw how much he would have offered .
y the property, as in case It ia offered aga
:, for sale he may be bidder. He thong
n however, that tho price at which itsold W
y In the REORGANIZATION, Mr.. Rodn
y asked Mr.. Herbert what he thought Z
y wharf property was worth and insisted
~ nm answer. Afterwards MIR. Rodney wilt
" draw the question, Mr.. Herbert expressi
~ his wlllingness to tell the court private
"a hut declining to answer publicly. villa
!. salisbury, Jr., Esq, representing the pt
~ chaser, asked the witness II he would no
y ! given $i2,OOO for the property. Mr.. Herb,
aid he was dealer In real estate, and 9
y, nllnad TO answar nnless reqnired 20 90